"Old man, don't be nosy, or I'll kill you!" On the construction site, the 69-year-old security guard with a 30cm fruit knife bravely fought the thief, causing the death of one person, is it legitimate defense? Or is it overdone? Hainan Sea

"Old man, don't be nosy, or I'll kill you!" On the construction site, the 69-year-old security guard with a 30cm fruit knife bravely fought the thief, causing the death of one person, is it legitimate defense? Or is it overdone?

In Haikou, Hainan, when Chen Mou, a security guard at a construction site, was on duty in the dormitory of the construction site, he found that Zhou Mou and another man, Wang Mou (handled in a separate case), were stealing air conditioners at the construction site, so they took out from the dormitory bed a silver stainless steel fruit knife about 30 centimeters long that was prepared in advance for self-defense and went out to shout to stop it.

After Zhou and Wang heard the shouting, they scolded Chen for not being nosy, otherwise they would beat him. Chen found that Zhou and Wang's motorcycles were parked nearby, so he took a knife to destroy the tires of the motorcycle to prevent the two from escaping by bicycle.

After Zhou saw it, he took off his shirt and hit Chen's head with his clothes, and then the two of them fought, Zhou asked Wang to beat Chen together, and Wang fled the scene because he was afraid. During the confrontation, Chen stabbed Zhou with a knife, causing Zhou to die on the spot.

After identification, Zhou Mou was stabbed in the left forearm by others with a single-edged sharp object before his death, resulting in blood vessel rupture and blood loss. During the beating, Chen's limbs were also injured, and the injuries suffered were minor injuries. Chen then called the police, and the public security police arrived at the scene and took him away. (Source of the case: China Judgment Documents Network)

In order to protect the property of the construction site, Chen's brave behavior of fighting gangsters should be commended, but the key is whether the behavior he committed is a crime. In this case, the focus of the dispute between the prosecution and the defense lies in whether Chen's behavior was unlimited defense or excessive defense.

The party that believes that Chen's behavior is established as excessive defense believes that in this case, Zhou and others originally intended to steal, and because they were discovered by the other party to destroy their own property, they were not allowed to carry out acts of resistance, and their acts themselves did not constitute transformational robbery.

However, Chen Mou held a 30cm long fruit knife to slash and kill the other party, resulting in the occurrence of the death of one person, and his act of defending the other party's theft obviously exceeded the necessary limit and caused major damage, and the defense was established according to law, and he should bear criminal responsibility.

The party that supports legitimate defense believes that in this case, Zhou and others committed the act of stealing an air conditioner, and Chen, in order to stop the other party's theft, held a knife and slashed a motorcycle to prevent the other party from escaping. At this time, Zhou used violence against Chen, causing him to achieve the consequences of minor injuries or more. Therefore, it should be determined that the behavior of Zhou and others constitutes transformational robbery.

Judging from the actual situation of this case, the robbery has seriously endangered the personal safety of defendant Chen. First, the robbers have a clear advantage in the balance of power. The robbers were two young and strong men. The robber was an old and frail man who was over 69 years old at the time of the crime.

Second, weather conditions favour the robber. On the night of the crime, "there were only stars, no moon", and visibility was low. Defendant Chen Mou was dazed and was in a clear disadvantage in judging the means and intensity of the infringement and in choosing the means and intensity of defense. Finally, a series of acts by the robber party were enough to make defendant Chen feel threatened with serious harm to his personal safety.

Based on the above circumstances, Chen's defensive act is completely justified, it is an act of exercising unlimited defense rights, and even if it causes the occurrence of the death of Zhou, there is no need to bear criminal responsibility.

As far as I am concerned, I believe that Chen's behavior should be justified defense, and the purpose of legitimate defense stipulated in the Criminal Law is to encourage the masses to fight against criminal acts and at the same time deter criminals who seriously endanger social order. In order to achieve this goal, whether the defended act at that time seriously endangered the personal safety of the defender should be viewed from the perspective of the defender.

According to the provisions of the Mainland Criminal Law, the occurrence of defensive acts that seriously endanger personal safety, such as murder, homicide, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc., which are committed and cause the casualties of unlawful infringers, is not excessive defense and does not need to bear criminal responsibility.

Therefore, as far as this case is concerned, it should be determined that Zhou's infringement was a robbery that seriously endangered personal safety. Chen X held a knife to defend against Zhou X's criminal acts, causing injuries and injuries to the infringer Zhou X, and did not need to bear criminal liability.

What are your thoughts on this? Which view do you support? Everyone is welcome to leave a message below the comment area.

—————————————————————

@Qingting Law Say Follow me, take the case to explain, learn more about the law.